It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

The acting in this film is first rate, the direction is first rate and it has a superb ending. Julia Roberts proves she is more than just a pretty face and Kidman gives an understated performance and allows the cast to take front and centre.I scored it 8 as I thought the pace a little too slow and the backwards and forwards in time , so beloved by some directors, didn't quite work for me. These are minor criticisms of a film that I enjoyed from start to finish.

A tight-knit team of rising investigators, along with their supervisor, is suddenly torn apart when they discover that one of their own teenage daughters has been brutally murdered. Even tho the film is at times a bit slow and not as well developed as it could at times, Secret in Their Eyes (2015) benefits directly from a dark and serious perfomance from Julia Roberts who does an incredible job in the lead role, Nicole Kidman and Chiwetel Ejiofor are also good in their roles. The film's end tho was kinda fast and not what i was expecting but even with it's flaws the film is still watchable and it's better than most reviewers said. (7.5/10)

This film is far better than than 6.2 rating it has received which seems mostly to come from those wanting to compare it to the Argentinian original. I am rating this as a separate film and not comparing it to the original. The acting is top notch and believable. Ejiofor, Kidman and Roberts all do a great job. It's an interesting crime thriller with some twists and turns. It's about a team of rising investigators, along with their supervisor, whose worlds are suddenly torn apart during a homicide investigation that hits close to home. It was completely watchable and entertaining. I'm not saying this is a high brow, blow your socks of type of movie, but it certainly deserves a far higher rating. I am certainly not saying that the original might not be much better. I have it on my list to watch but in my opinion, if you like thrillers and movies with some twists and turns and want to be entertained I recommend giving it a chance.

A girl is found in a dumpster fully clothed, but the girl has been raped and bleach has been poured on her and inside her to eliminate DNA evidence.Anyone with a background in criminology will tell you that the whole scene would have been highly unlikely. The guy had no real connection to her. The only reason a perp would put clothes back on a female after murdering her - cover up her body - is if they had some kind of connection to her (family, friend, partner). For example, Amber Hagerman, a nine year old taken off her bike in broad daylight was found with one sock on face down in a creek behind her apartment building. Similarly, Kristen French, a 15 year old after being held captive for days was found nude on the side of the road. Her head was even shaved to eliminate any potential evidence of carpet fibres. These victims are discarded like trash. A perp is not going to put clothes back on them, especially since clothes always has some kind of evidence on it (head hair,dog hair, feline hair, clothing/carpet fibre, pubic hair, the kind of forensic material that cannot be bleached away). Many people have been convicted of similar crimes on weak evidence, such as carpet fibres in a car matching fibres found within the inside of a girl's pants, for example, even after being submerged in a lake for some time. This is NOT always the case. Some girls are found partially clothed, but that is only because the unsub was in a hurry and didn't bother to remove all the clothing during the assault. In the case of this movie, the unsub bleached the girl on the inside and out. If he went to all that trouble, he would not risk putting clothes back on the girl, since clothing always carries some carpet, hair, clothing fibres on it. Also, he did a bad a bleaching job, since the clothing was not even bleached. The forensics in the case were pathetic, it looked the case was taking place in some poor country like Columbia, Mexico or the Philippines with no forensic team of specialists. She went into the dumpster and completely contaminated the scene and all the evidence at the scene. Any evidence on the daughter was contaminated at that point with fibres she brought on herself. (That is why investigators wear special clothing prior to going into these types of scenes.)They are detectives in a joint force on terrorism and yet they are asked to investigate a rape and murder of a female. This is also unlikely. There are HOMICIDE INVESTIGATORS for that, not the same thing as homeland security. Whoever wrote this movie really needs to watch some crime dramas and forensic files episodes because even in the 1980s, when DNA had NOT been used in court yet and was at its most early stages of development, there was still a lot of forensic data collected at a scene. The acting was good, but the movie was boring, jumped back and fourth, and was inaccurate/unrealistic.